Jaya Rani Nag and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—Two Certificate Case No. 9/95-96 and 10/95-96 were preferred by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Dumka against the petitioners-they were decided in favour of the petitioners but the Deputy Commissioner, in Appeals No. 1 & 2/1996-97 set aside the orders passed by the Certificate Officer.

A Division Bench of Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 122/1997 Jeevan Nag v. The State of Bihar and Ors., taking into consideration that the Appellate Authority passed ex parte order, vide order dated 20th February, 1997 set aside the appellate orders and remitted it to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with the law.

The Appellate Authority again set aside the orders passed y the Certificate Officers vide orders both dated 25th April, 1997 in Certificate Appeal No. 1/1996-97 and 2/1996-97. The petitioner challenged the order in C.W. J.C. No. 4490/97. It was pointed out that the appellant Bank though preferred appeal beyond time and no application u/s 5 of Limitation Act was filed, the appeals were allowed in favour of the Bank. A Division Bench of Patna High Court vide order dated 10th November, 1997 set aside those appellate orders and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law with liberty to Bank to file a petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

In the present case, the grievance of petitioner is that the appellate authority, thereafter, vide order dated 10th January, 2001 condoned the delay and allowed the appeal No. 1/1996-97 and by another order dated 10th January, 2001 condoned the delay and admitted the appeal No. 2/1996-97 without giving any reason.

Having heard the Counsel for the parties and as it is evident that the appellate orders both dated 10th January, 2001 passed in Certificate Appeal No. 1/1996-97 and Appeal No. 2/1996-97 are non-speaking orders, those orders set aside. The appeals are remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka with direction to hear the parties and determine by a reasoned order whether petitioner for condonation of delay be allowed in favour of appellant or not preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.